Our TV News station is looking to hire a new anchor. We have two choices, an attractive woman straight out of college or a veteran woman journalist who would generally be considered unattractive. Which way should we go for the success of the division? Pick a side and argue your point.
The Haveman Chronicle (Summer) Powered by WordPress
Max Magazine Theme was created by 
This is a difficult decision we have to make. One of the questions that I would need answered is, “Who is our target audience?” This could make a difference in who I would recommend hiring. For me personally, I would rather watch the veteran woman journalist. It makes no difference to me what she looks like. When I tune into a news program, I want to see someone who can tell me the news. I want to be able to trust that they know what they are talking about. I want to believe they have the experience to do a good job and not make rookie mistakes. I think experience is much more important than looks. I want someone who knows what questions to ask. I want someone who is not afraid to ask the hard questions. I want someone who is not going to be intimidated by the subjects of the stories. So, if people like me are our target audience, then I think we should go with experience.
Honestly, I think we’d do best to hire both. The unfortunate truth is that audiences react best to attractive news anchors, so having the younger woman is best from a television perspective. However, if we brought on the veteran to handle writing and reporting for the show (and hey, maybe she could do one of the podcasts I mentioned in the other discussion), then the quality of our coverage would be excellent. This way we can have the best of both worlds — hard-hitting, reliable coverage, with the visual appeal of a younger anchor.
JRN F101 — Wyman — Summer Week 4, Discussion 3 of 3
If our news station is hiring a new anchor and the choice is between an attractive woman straight out of college or a veteran women journalist who would generally be considered unattractive, I think the decision should be made based on the style and demographic of the news station. I would organize a focus group to view several on-air anchor reports from the two candidates and see how the focus group reacts. If there is a clearly favored candidate identified from the focus group I think it would be wise to hire that person. I recall watching a CNN show anchor who was very attractive but she came across as stiff and trying too hard to be good. I didn’t enjoy watching the show because of how she acted on camera and how she delivered the news. On the other hand, I also recall viewing another female news anchor who certainly did not meet the typical definition of attractive but she was experienced and believable and stood up to the toughest of interviewees. I’d hire her in a heartbeat.
#
Targeting who are audience is would be best, and give us a better basis to go off of. Maybe the test group would even help us see how the anchors react, and be a good trial run for not only ratings but field work for the anchors.
I think that the audience that generally watches the news are people that are interested in the content of the material, and not the physical appearance of the person delivering the information. Now if this is an issue of someone fresh out of college who has excellent communication skills and speaks with confidence in front of a camera, versus a veteran journalist who maybe doesn’t speak well in front of a camera and comes off as unknowledgeable or unpleasant to listen to, then I’d be saying lets go with the younger news anchor who just so happens to be attractive. This isn’t a soap opera or reality TV show where the audience watching is more interesting in the physical appearance of the individual; we are talking about news, which really we just need someone to convey the meaning of what’s going on to us.
I think we need to curtail who are audience is and match it with the expectations they have come to expect with the information we are presenting.
I also think there are more factors to it then the stereotyping of the women we were given. I also think the person best for the job is the one who is most confident in relying the news to our viewers.
This is a difficult decision given the political correctness in today’s society. We certainly don’t want to appear sexist if the attractive woman is given the position. I believe that the fairest and most balanced approach would be to provide each candidate with a two-week opportunity to showcase their broadcasting skills and allow us to test market each candidate. After the auditions, we would engage a third party marketing firm to survey viewers’ opinions on each applicant. It would be necessary to ensure the questions posed to the viewers are unbiased in regards to looks. Based on the survey, the confidential results would be tallied and forwarded to our Human Resources Department to formalize an offer to the successful candidate.Â
Â
Regardless of the decision, it is a win-win for the station. If the attractive recent college graduate is selected, and there is some backlash in terms of us being accused of being sexist, then we can argue that a detailed market survey was used to make the hire on an unbiased and objective basis. If the less-attractive, veteran journalist is successful, it shows the public that our station is committed to seeking out and securing the ‘best’ news anchor without considering the individuals’ attractiveness.
Â
If the viewers prefer the veteran journalist, it should not have an effect on the bottom line for the News Division in that a ‘trusted’ anchor will be able to retain viewership and attract new viewers. Conversely, the attractive journalist, by the very nature of being attractive (and capable) would also not hurt the bottom line.
I like your idea to give them each a chance and see who does the better job. Maybe they will go with the young girl anyway because, although inexperienced, she has a longer career ahead of her and probably more ambition to fight for a job. She could improve very quickly.
I would say it depends on the program being aired. If it is something relatively simple, let it go to the unexperienced news anchor that is there for her looks alone. I don’t care if she has a pulse going up to her brain, she just has to read a prompt and smile. Is that bad, maybe not, because maybe people only view programs for the beauty and that serves as the hook. She would not be entering a niche brand; she should be competing in a general market of attractive news anchors. Now if we are doing segments that are really deep and difficult I want experience all over it. An experienced journalist, regardless of sex factor, brings in referent authority that appreciates with value with care. Hard hitting and award journalists bring prestige with them and we need it to sell the hard stories. If we tie an unexperienced college grad to the story of the decade we are gambling with viewership. If we put it in the hands of someone with 20 years’ experience and a brand associated with their work we are good to go. Besides, beauty decays regardless, you can only hedge against it. That is how I would slice and dice this conundrum, beauty for simplicity, and experience for complexity. That simple.
Week 4 part 3 (Eddie Crosby)
It’s sad to say but “Looks saleâ€, I myself would like a confident reliable news broadcaster that provides me with accurate information over some and not just some attractive looking lady looking to make a name for herself, but again “looks sale ratingsâ€.
We see it all the time in the grocery stores and in the banks, women are perfect sales representatives of the company’s that they represent, there clean cut well-mannered and in most cases young, under educated with little to know education.
Let’s look at the numbers:
looking at the numbers of shoppers these days you see that the majority of shoppers are women, and women tend to stay in the stores longer than men and tend to spend more money on multiple items compared to men who generally buy one or two items and leave the stores.
Women act the same way in there television viewing mode, they tend to stay on the same channel longer and are more interested in the information than the person’s looks. Now men on the other hand tend to channel surf more and become easily distracted by looks more than the information. (That distraction might make the men stay longer)’ thus raising the viewer ratings.
What we are really trying here with this question is asking what percentage of the population are we focusing our services on and to what percentage are we willing to loose based on the demographics that I presented above. “Looks vs educationâ€
I think it depends who our audience. Moreover I think experience and talent outweighs any beauty. Really, after a few viewings of the new girl it would be evident that she was new and it may be even painful to watch her, even if she is beautiful. I watch the evening news every now and again and there is a new channel with young reporters that are ‘beautiful’ and the old experienced news anchors on the other channel. I can’t stand watching the new people as they often flub the words and have less interesting and in depth stories. They have more expensive equipment but it is not as well made. I don’t think that better equipment means better quality. It all depends who puts it together. That’s why I wholeheartedly vouch for the more experienced news anchor. Some of the most loved people of television are not beautiful.
I think that we would have to look at both people and interview them intensively to see which would fit better for what we need and who would be better for the audience we are trying to reach. On one hand, the attractive woman straight out of college, even though she has no experience yet in the TV News world, that shouldn’t keep her from this position. She may have great ideals, may be able to take the station to unthinkable areas due to new ideals and such that the older generation hasn’t thought of yet or are just to stuck in their ways to try. Just because she is new and attractive doesn’t mean she is an idiot, sure she may be inexperienced but may be what is needed in the area of new ideals.
Just because the older unattractive veteran journalist is experienced and knows what to do, that doesn’t make her the perfect fit for this job either. Even though she is good at what she does doesn’t mean she isn’t stuck in a rut, burnt out or just plan wont get with the times and move this station forward. That is why my choice would be to see after many interviews which one fits our needs most and can move our station forward.
In my opinion if we want to ensure the “success of the division” we should hire the younger, less experienced anchor. First, it’s sadly true that the more beautiful anchors are received by the public easily; people like to look at pretty people. Second, some may think her inexperience is a downfall, but in many ways it may benefit us. For example, she is not set in her way and she still has much to learn. It would be easier to integrate this new anchor into our system. Also, a younger anchor just getting into the business is going to work really hard to prove her worth as a broadcast journalist. Lastly, an inexperienced anchor is going to cost less salary wise, saving us money is always good.
I also wonder if maybe the anchor position is on a large-scale, high and upcoming, national based program, or more of the local, hometown feel. I like how you tried to cover all of the angles though from audience to budget.
When I think of news, tuning in to find out information on what is going on, my thoughts pop to local news — this is what is going to impact me the soonest, and what is most pertinent to my daily operations. On a smaller, local scale, I would say give the younger girl the shot. University grad, she’s going to be eager and a breathe of fresh air to local newscasting, and become a familiar, friendly face to the audience.
On the other hand, if this is a more national, or even global scale set-up, experience will always win. In situations where you are dealing with politics, foreign policy, health epidemics, etc. I want someone with knowledge and experience — it doesn’t matter what you look like, you just better be prepared to give some accurate, steady information as it comes at you.
The sexism and ageism poised within this question is astounding.
Anyway.
Obviously, we go with the veteran reporter. The fact that one would stay in this industry long enough to even attain the title “veteran” basically makes them a unicorn to begin with, so why we would even consider a rookie (however young and conventionally attractive they may be) is beyond me.
I believe we would get the most success out of hiring both the attractive young woman as well as the experienced anchor. In todays society, it is a fact that many people will react to things they see. Often times you hear of teachers who are perceived as attractive and those students will more often then not, listen and pay attention to that teachers versus one that might not be as appealing to the eye. As twisted as it is, it is the truth in the world today. But on the flip side, I think we would get a good response with someone who is experienced and can report on some good stories. So, to make it the best of both worlds, I believe we should just hire both. We would be able to expand our viewers with the young and attractive anchor but also keep the audience interested with the story that is written by the more experienced anchor. If we are looking to build a strong viewer base and make a good profit, I believe we need to do everything we can to make it the best possible story from all aspects.
I think it does all depend on how they interview. Speaking specifically stereotyping I would root for the attractive woman straight out of college. However I would choose her because of the fact that she is just out of college. Because she is new to the industry, but has obviously worked very hard since she has gotten an opportunity at a spot at our coveted News station. Since she is also just out of college she probably has a fresh excited demeanor that the veteran journalist has now since lost. I think in order to keep our audience excited about our news and having them be return viewers we need to keep things upbeat. A new News anchor will also most likely be more vigilant and eager to please our team proving to be a valued member.
The cultural tendency of the United States is to treat women like their likability, attractiveness, and status within the community all depends on their age and rank on the beauty chart. I do not agree with this position. What defines a woman is more than her age or beauty characteristics. The veteran journalist has experience, giving her substance and quality that the graduate does not which will likely make her a much more savvy, witty anchor. I also know that the right cosmetics, lighting, clothing, and accoutrements can make anyone who is less than appealing become more so. That being said, it would be my vote to hire the veteran woman journalist. We need to set an example by not choosing the younger and prettier over the more seasoned women in our field.